GUILTY FL - FSU Law Professor Dan Markel Murdered by Hitmen #20

[Knitpicker]

‘The Hunger Games’

A few weeks ago it was hard to imagine anyone flipping. Now Im getting the sense of raw human nature’s desire for survival.

Each person is selfish and why act any differently when they come face to face with their own mortality. They eliminated a father just to make their life ‘better’. I wonder who they will eliminate now to make their own lives better, as in LWP being a death sentence.

I thought I heard Donna say on one ofthe calls, that Wendi was in the other room with Harvey, and that she told the boys what happened to Charlie.

 

[clearskies1]

In the earlier trials,I believe Det Corbitt said he believed she left her house 12:15. I remember being surprised when it seemed changed to 12:30.and I also remember in the first or second trial Wendi being asked when she left the house and she confirmed it was 12:15. That stayed in my mind but would take rewatching a lot of testimony!

In WA's testimony at CA's trial, she said she refreshed her memory about it and that she left her home sometime around 12:45, and then she agreed with Cappleman that it was around 12:30. See below at at 1:40:55. I think there was also testimony about her phone still being near her home at 12:27pm, but I'm not positive about that -- I would need to go back to check that.

 

[Knitpicker]

In WA's testimony at CA's trial, she said she refreshed her memory about it and that she left her home sometime around 12:45, and then she agreed with Cappleman that it was around 12:30. See below at at 1:40:55. I think there was also testimony about her phone still being near her home at 12:27pm, but I'm not positive about that -- I would need to go back to check that.

I am talking about trial 1or2.
she also made two calls to a friend in England, each lasting between 14 and 16 minutes. Seems while she was on the road. I am going to have to find it today. I remember specifically. I think!
she would not have enough time to drive by Trescott, go to ABC, talk about 30 minutes to the friend in England, and arrive at lunch within 15 minutes. The drive from her home to Trescott is at least 15 minutes.

 

[cottonweaver]

He's a pathological liar, but I actually believe him when he says he didn't know she drove to the crime scene. She wasn't supposed to, that wasn't part of the plan and messed up her stupid alibis. She couldn't help herself though, drove past, but kept it quiet from CA and DA, knowing they wouldn't be best pleased. CA really does throw her under the bus.

Okay but at the same time isn't he protecting her re the KM to SG ' I know' evidence from Luis Rivera?

If he hadn't known for years, it means Wendi did not call Charlie to tell him the deed was done ( And then he passed that info onto Katie etc)

Ultimately, I guess this part is all moot unless Dougan & Sandford can explain the tech nuances around cell tower coverage & accuracy to the jury in Donna's trial or the new search warrants find a few extra crumbs)

 

[clearskies1]

I am talking about trial 1or2.
she also made two calls to a friend in England, each lasting between 14 and 16 minutes. Seems while she was on the road. I am going to have to find it today. I remember specifically. I think!
she would not have enough time to drive by Trescott, go to ABC, talk about 30 minutes to the friend in England, and arrive at lunch within 15 minutes. The drive from her home to Trescott is at least 15 minutes.

Yes, I understood you were referring to the earlier trials. I'm referring to the most recent trial where both the State and Wendi agree that that she left at around 12:30 pm. Perhaps after the first two trials both sides focused more on her departure time and by trial 3 (CA's trial) they agree that she left at around 12:30. Since there is agreement, it does not seem possible that she contacted CA by 12:30 about her going to Trescott. Yes, she apparently called others on her drive. JMO.

 

[stamplewie]

I have listened to many but not all of the calls. While CA obsesses about all of the crazy coincidences in this case, including Wendy's book that appeared autobiographical and "foreshadowed" events, Wendy's drive-by on the morning of the murder and her purchase of "bullet" bourbon, the tv joke, the tv repairman, "tv for $5k" and all the other things that "painted a picture" of his guilt but were not "facts". Yet, not one time, in any call did he discuss the single most damning evidence -- the FACT that his stapled money found its way to the shooters. All the other "coincidences" aside, CA paid the shooters. Case closed.

 

[IQuestion]

A yet-to-be-identified acquaintance of the A's did contact LE and told them that DA had called them out of the blue and asked about accommodation recommendations in the Philippines. The contact had indicated that is was strange to hear from her suddenly and that they were not regularly communicating before this.

I do find it a little implausible though that LE would need a tip from a citizen to know that the A's booked a one-way international ticket. I've got to believe that LE would have passport monitoring hooks into the airlines perhaps via TSA, and would have been observing financial transactions.

FERPO just a thought...what if they were using stolen passports? Very easy to get pilfered passports from sight-seeing-seniors or snow birds in Miami this time of year. Or make nice with a neighbor and steal theirs? (I read about it in a book called The Jackal years ago, and the man who had his passport stolen reported immediately to the American Embassy.) If they were as smart as they claim to be in their phone calls....
Oh well, that ship already sailed.

 

[amicuscurie]

Indeed. The tapes are beyond fascinating. Did you all hear where he was explaining how Raushbaum told him it'll be easy to explain because he's innocent. That is not the only time we have heard that either. I forget if it was Mentour lawyer or Tim Jansen who spoke with him in person, and that is what he told whoever it was. They asked is he nervous or worried. This was months and months ago, and he said no, because he has an innocent client.

It can't possibly be true that he believes that, is it? Which means he's a good actor I guess. I believe defense attorneys cannot suborn perjury of their client so maybe that's just what he has to say that in order to be able to put Charlie up on the stand.

In my experience attorneys never tell their clients they are going to win, or anything definite like that. People hear what they want to hear. Probably Rash was encouraging and he may have believed in his case or at least appeared to. Lawyers are taught to argue both sides convincingly, and a good lawyer would not admit publicly that he had a weak case.

 

[amicuscurie]

I have listened to many but not all of the calls. While CA obsesses about all of the crazy coincidences in this case, including Wendy's book that appeared autobiographical and "foreshadowed" events, Wendy's drive-by on the morning of the murder and her purchase of "bullet" bourbon, the tv joke, the tv repairman, "tv for $5k" and all the other things that "painted a picture" of his guilt but were not "facts". Yet, not one time, in any call did he discuss the single most damning evidence -- the FACT that his stapled money found its way to the shooters. All the other "coincidences" aside, CA paid the shooters. Case closed.

He admitted at trial he paid the shooters. He explains that with the extortion story. That appeared to me to be a big part of his defense strategy, to admit to the evidence against him to take some of the sting out of it. He says on the tapes that the couldn’t explain Wendi’s actions, and it hurt him with the jury.

 

[amicuscurie]

Mentour Lawyer focused tonight on something that struck me, also, as odd on one of those recordings. CA seems absolutely bewildered as to how/why WA just so happened to drive by the house so soon after the murder. Why is CA so bewildered about this? Could that have been a complete surprise to him whenever he found that out? DA seemed to be casually reinforcing him in his soliloquy on that topic, somewhat different than her active participation in CA's other complaints. CA admits it's a one-in-a-million chance that she'd be driving by that house just after the crime, and understands how that reflected so negatively on him.

So, what could that mean? Was CA out of the "knowledge loop?" Could he have been setup by WA and DA - to be an operational agent (i.e. a money mover) with limited "need-to-know" security clearance? Operating under some other story that they fed him? If true, that would give him plausible deniability and, once arrested, a need to come up with some type of Rube-Goldberg rationalization as to why he was moving the money that didn't involve admitting to a murder he didn't know about and/or flipping on his family. He would have been able to quickly figure he was used as a patsy once the murder happened, or when informed by KM the night before that the money was for a murder that he didn't know was inspired by his own family.

Or, alternatively, perhaps it went down exactly as the prosecution theorized, but CA never knew that WA had operational knowledge - I guess relayed from DA who obviously cannot stay silent. WA did tell JL about the upcoming hit, but perhaps she never told CA she knew the plan. IDK, this is confusing.

Another thing that struck me is that in another call, DA claims emphatically that they have always been "protecting Wendi." How far does that "protection" extend? Everybody in the family has a high degree of resentment toward WA for all of the "protection" they feel that they have needed to give her.

He does say on one call that he did not know Wendi drove by the scene until around 2016, I believe. Who knows if that’s true. If it is true, then it may also be true that she just drove by there on her own because “she couldn’t help herself.” She may have known it was going down, but either Charlie didn’t know she knew, or didn’t expect her to drive by. He seems quite upset by it and seems to believe it was the final nail in his coffin.

 

[amicuscurie]

This is not about an appeal. He knows he has nothing to appeal. He has said as much on the calls. This seems legitimately about CA trying to figure out how on gods green earth he could have gotten so unlucky that on the day of the murder, WA drives by the scene, implying that she did so not knowing what was going to go down, but by doing so, essentially sealed his fate.

In my opinion he is making it sound like that was a coincidence because he knows he’s being recorded. The part about him thinking it was most unlucky for him that she drove by, in my opinion, is true.

 

[amicuscurie]

I'm not surprised by it. One could argue that it seems that he's saying that Wendi went rogue -- could not control herself -- and stupidly drove to Trescott, and then did not admit to CA that she did that. JMO.

yes, this is also my opinion, that she went rogue and he’s pissed about it.

 

[amicuscurie]

I thought I heard Donna say on one ofthe calls, that Wendi was in the other room with Harvey, and that she told the boys what happened to Charlie.

That is what was said on one of the calls.

 

[Missyrocks5]

Ugh! I’m finally carving out some me time and am in bed trying to catch up. Christmas needs to just get here so I can get back to my normal life, Websleuths and this case!

All these newly released calls…I haven’t had a chance to listen to any of them - just keeping up with what you all are saying. Where do I even begin!? Who has the best channel to listen to them?

I'd say Pretty Lies and Alibis is easiest because ahe broke them down, has highlights written in the thumbnails, and cleaned up the audio. After listening to around three of them, it got to the point where it was just so repetitive. Basically, Charlie, talking nonstop, saying he got convicted because the jury could not get past Wendi being on Trescot an hour after the murder, the book she wrote, saying how much she hates Tallahassee, Donna's emails about relocation,& the jury didn't hear much else. That it's a 1 in a million chance that was all coincidence. Rinse and repeat.

It's just so strange that he, on the one hand is laying out again, and again, and again, how strong a case they had against him, and how no reasonable person would believe that all those things were coincidences, but yet still saying that they're a bunch of yokels who were too stupid to see his side.

 

[cottonweaver]

Mentour Lawyer focused tonight on something that struck me, also, as odd on one of those recordings. CA seems absolutely bewildered as to how/why WA just so happened to drive by the house so soon after the murder. Why is CA so bewildered about this? Could that have been a complete surprise to him whenever he found that out? DA seemed to be casually reinforcing him in his soliloquy on that topic, somewhat different than her active participation in CA's other complaints. CA admits it's a one-in-a-million chance that she'd be driving by that house just after the crime, and understands how that reflected so negatively on him.

So, what could that mean? Was CA out of the "knowledge loop?" Could he have been setup by WA and DA - to be an operational agent (i.e. a money mover) with limited "need-to-know" security clearance? Operating under some other story that they fed him? If true, that would give him plausible deniability and, once arrested, a need to come up with some type of Rube-Goldberg rationalization as to why he was moving the money that didn't involve admitting to a murder he didn't know about and/or flipping on his family. He would have been able to quickly figure he was used as a patsy once the murder happened, or when informed by KM the night before that the money was for a murder that he didn't know was inspired by his own family.

Or, alternatively, perhaps it went down exactly as the prosecution theorized, but CA never knew that WA had operational knowledge - I guess relayed from DA who obviously cannot stay silent. WA did tell JL about the upcoming hit, but perhaps she never told CA she knew the plan. IDK, this is confusing.

Another thing that struck me is that in another call, DA claims emphatically that they have always been "protecting Wendi." How far does that "protection" extend? Everybody in the family has a high degree of resentment toward WA for all of the "protection" they feel that they have needed to give her.

Only just saw this - I was asking similar questions.

IDK the answer but I do think he's casting the blame around quite widely.
Trescott drive-by, TV joke, Re- location emails. ( All Wendi & partly Donna too. Tv repair slot & relocation emails)

Later, he vents his spleen on Ryan Fitz and then in the same call - linked on WS page- 40 - he's commenting on Rashbaum's over-optimism again. A lot.

I wonder if he's mulling over the conflicted interests of DR being lawyer for all three Adelsons?

 

[Gardenista]

I'm not sure if I believe him.

At 48m - 50m, in the same call ( linked above on this WS page) he's claiming that he'd never heard of this evidence until he heard Officer Brannon testify to it , he thought Brannon was 'was making S--- up.... an A Hole...'
( I'm assuming he means Brannon in trial 1? 2019. )
Ok, he may not have had access to Discovery ( on the sly via KM's lawyer) but when did MentourLawyer first upload that Isom interview?

Surely it was pre Trial 1? Any ' case oldies' know or recall which year they first watched that?

( Charlie would've watched her Isom interview as soon as it was uploaded. Plus Wendi told her pals in 2014 that she'd driven down Trescott, it beggars belief that she didn't tell Mum & Dad too. He could be lying)

Have a listen and see what y'all think when you get time, or perhaps, somebody who's pals with Mentour Lawyer can ask him?

either - he's lying OR
it's another black mark against Wendi who withheld key evidence from him, for years. Evidence which sunk him, he feels.

ML's first upload of Wendi's interview was July 20, 2021

 

[Weki]

I’m really suspicious of Rashbaum representing Donna and Harvey before he started repping Charlie. Charlie is clearly upset that he was advised against fleeing. By whom is the question? If Rashbaum advised him against fleeing before his arrest I have to wonder whose interests Rashbaum was really protecting. Was Donna worried that if Charlie fled they’d look at her more closely and arrest her for fear that she would flee too? Lots of moving parts to this issue imo. I can’t conceive of any reason his parents wouldn’t advise and encourage him to flee once KM’s conviction came through! Except to cover their own behinds. He’s the scapegoat! JMO

 

[JerseyPride]

I’m really suspicious of Rashbaum representing Donna and Harvey before he started repping Charlie. Charlie is clearly upset that he was advised against fleeing. By whom is the question? If Rashbaum advised him against fleeing before his arrest I have to wonder whose interests Rashbaum was really protecting. Was Donna worried that if Charlie fled they’d look at her more closely and arrest her for fear that she would flee too? Lots of moving parts to this issue imo. I can’t conceive of any reason his parents wouldn’t advise and encourage him to flee once KM’s conviction came through! Except to cover their own behinds. He’s the scapegoat! JMO

But “once KM’s conviction came through” CA had already been arrested.

 

[Missyrocks5]

I've seen the back-and-forth here regarding what CA knew or did not know about WA driving on Trescott. She said it in her interview, but the question is, when would he have had access to know it. I also think it would require a look into the Tallahassee Democrat, and what they reported along the way to know the timeline of when CA possibly would be aware that WA said that because I think we all can see that she would be the type to lie to him.

He's claiming he didn't know until years later. What is also interesting in one of the tapes I heard was that he talks about that katie saying she knew could not have come from Wendi's phone because the ping from the tower showed Wendi was like 5 miles away from Trescott at the time. No one thinks that WA told KM it's done. W would've only told C, but the question is how is that communicated. Did she text something in WhatsApp? Did they all have a burner phone (a very smart thought by folks here) just for that our purpose?

That has always been perplexing. How did katie know? The fact that Georgia didn't ask that at trial also shows either the answer didn't help, or she's saving it. I don't think it was in katie's proffers either. That to me is one of the biggest questions and riddles from this whole case. Assuming that Rivera heard correctly, how did katie know? did Georgia not bring it up at the trial because that's opening up the can of worms to show that W was a part of the conspiracy? She is saving that for Wendi's trial?

Does anyone know what W's phone pings show following 11 AM?

 

[cottonweaver]

ML's first upload of Wendi's interview was July 20, 2021

Thank you



So if we take Charlie's claims at face value, Wendi kept it from him for around 5 years
2019 trial Brannon testimony ( at 33m)

Wendi has been listening to these new jail calls at the same time as we have.
This must be a sore that Charlie will keep picking at.
Not surprised Wendi wants to be a trustee for Roman

Cross posted with @Missyrocks5 . Yes good idea, re Tallahassee Democrat. Luis could have been mistaken in his interpretation?